The defense will be better with Zeke

[Rogerthat12]

You realize Romo threw earlier and more often in games in 2014 than he did in 2013 right? It was late in games when his throwing decreased because we were winning those games.

This is irrefutable. It is matter of public record.

It also destroys your argument.

You realize that Murray had a higher percentage of his yards come in garbage time than did Mcfadden.

This is irrefutable. It is a matter of public record.

It also destroys your argument.

None of it destroys my argument, the Seattle game alone refutes your conclusion the game was contested and the running game was epic and assisted the passing game.

Further, this is a matter of public record:

In 2014 total pass attempts were 435 with 34 TD's, 2013 pass attempts 535 with 31 TD's, 2012 were 648 with 28 TD's, 2011 pass attempts were 522 with 31 TD's.

Never mind the 2,354 rushing yards, I guess they only play a little role in the second half...

Jason Garrett believes were winning games in 2014 due the synergy between both the passing game and running game and how the running game had an impact on both sides of the ball.

If that is the case, we were passing better because of the running game in the first half because of the more favorable defenses due to the running game, per his words.

Go figure the one winning season in recent memory 12-4 for Dallas, also happens to feature a dominant running attack with 2,354 rushing yards and less overall passing yards of 435.


We were winning because of the synergy between the passing game and the running game, the effect was better QB play and scoring more points.

Jason parsed it as such:

Jason Garrett articulates clearly why they drafted Zeke and how the 2014 style of running game allows for a positive impact on both the offense and defense :

1) Helps QB by taking pressure off.
2) Helps WR's with favorable looks outside because of run defenses.
3) Possess the ball more.
4) More plays on offense.
5) Fewer plays on defense.
6) Allows defense to play at a higher level.
7) Pervasive impact on entire team.

He states "Similar to how we played a couple years ago when we ran the ball so effectively and I thought it had a positive impact on everyone throughout our team and we believe Zeke gives us a chance to do that".

This was from the presser, start time 4:42 and 5:20 specifically.

Zeke also helps the passing game because he is a natural pass catcher.


http://www.dallascowboys.com/video/2016/04/28/press-conference-after-picking-ezekiel-Elliott

 

[Rogerthat12]

You think we were only balanced in the second half of games?

Have you watched the Seattle game?

Do you really want to argue the running game only had an impact during the second half?

Do you really think the dynamic running game does not have these benefits even during the first half on QB play and options?

1) Helps QB by taking pressure off.
2) Helps WR's with favorable looks outside because of run defenses.
3) Possess the ball more.
4) More plays on offense.
5) Fewer plays on defense.
6) Allows defense to play at a higher level.
7) Pervasive impact on entire team.

 

[bsheeern]

It's definitely confusing, because you guys keep misrepresenting the argument and then saying you've got it.

There are situations where you run the ball and it helps the passing game. There always have been, and there always will be. Those are important plays. They get you into downs and distances to convert drives. They let you force the other team to burn time outs. They let you avoid taking risks in the passing game that can get you beat. It's a big part of every NFL offense.

But, with the exception of short yardage and goal line, you don't win more football games by being better at it than the other guys. Which means you can get the same benefit of the running game without devoting expensive resources to it. In a zero sum situation like the NFL draft, that matters a lot. If you're spending a premium pick on a RB, it had better be for something other than what he gives in in terms of rushes from scrimmage.

Well that's a pretty huge exception wouldn't you say?

What about Yards per attempt on First down. What about negative yards? What about Yards per attempt out of the Shotgun vs a 1 back set? What about yards gained when running the read option. I could go on & on & on with different scenarios for different teams.

To simply say outrushing another team means you are better at it is very elementary. Would you not agree?

 

[Idgit]

I don't see how that word BETTER means you outrushed your opponents. If he had said "The benefit you get from rushing for more yards than your opponent does not significantly help you win games" then he's on to something.
Hopefully you see where I'm going with this.
One team can outrush the other team in total yards and ypc but yet the team who had less yards can be way more effective at running the ball.

Yeah, 'better' is not a great word here. Sometimes you reach when you're looking for different ways to make the same point so that it might be clearer, but that can get you into trouble. 'Effective' is the right word, and you're right that effectiveness isn't necessarily measured in total yards.

But the idea is the same. You use running plays to get into advantageous downs and distances. Use them to extend drives in short yardage. Use them to score from the goal line. Use them to be more sure you don't turn over the football when the situation calls for it. Use them to bleed time off the clock when you can, or to avoid passing if you've got the lead and can move the chains by running alone. All of those things are big parts of an NFL game and important to helping teams win.

It's just that teams can get all the tactical benefit of that without spending limited resources on RBs. If a Thomas Rawls or a Demarco Murray or a Darren McFadden can get you that, you don't need to spend a top-5 pick on it. The extra yard per carry, or the 3-4 big runs you might get don't mean much in the face of what an effective passing offense does for you. The impact running plays get swamped statistically by the impact passing plays. And you can have a very effective passing offense without needing to have a game changing RB in the backfield. GB and NE have done it off and on for years. If you've got the QB, you don't need the RB. If you'e go the RB, you still need the QB.

I know it seems counterintuitive. And I like watching a team matriculate down the field with a series of handoffs every bit as much at the next guy. But if the teams that do that more effectively than their competition don't tend to win more of their games in the long run---and the statistical evidence that they don't at this point is very clear--you just can't make it a major point of emphasis in building your team.

 

[Rogerthat12]

It's definitely confusing, because you guys keep misrepresenting the argument and then saying you've got it.

There are situations where you run the ball and it helps the passing game. There always have been, and there always will be. Those are important plays. They get you into downs and distances to convert drives. They let you force the other team to burn time outs. They let you avoid taking risks in the passing game that can get you beat. It's a big part of every NFL offense.

But, with the exception of short yardage and goal line, you don't win more football games by being better at it than the other guys. Which means you can get the same benefit of the running game without devoting expensive resources to it. In a zero sum situation like the NFL draft, that matters a lot. If you're spending a premium pick on a RB, it had better be for something other than what he gives in in terms of rushes from scrimmage.

Blocking, catching out of the backfield and running are part of the benefit of a complete back.

In the 2014 season, the Dallas formula was a balanced attack with passing and running which Garrett attributes the style of running game as the catalyst.

He listed these benefits:

1) Helps QB by taking pressure off.
2) Helps WR's with favorable looks outside because of run defenses.
3) Possess the ball more.
4) More plays on offense.
5) Fewer plays on defense.
6) Allows defense to play at a higher level.
7) Pervasive impact on entire team.

These obviously impact the passing game in all four quarters.

 

[Idgit]

Well that's a pretty huge exception wouldn't you say?

What about Yards per attempt on First down. What about negative yards? What about Yards per attempt out of the Shotgun vs a 1 back set? What about yards gained when running the read option. I could go on & on & on with different scenarios for different teams.

To simply say outrushing another team means you are better at it is very elementary. Would you not agree?

Yeah, short yardage and goal line situations are a big part of the game, no doubt.

I tried to address my position re: rushing effectiveness in the post above this one. Hopefully it clears up what I was trying to say better than my earlier post.

 

[jday]

None of it destroys my argument, the Seattle game alone refutes your conclusion the game was contested and the running game was epic and assisted the passing game.

Further, this is a matter of public record:

In 2014 total pass attempts were 435 with 34 TD's, 2013 pass attempts 535 with 31 TD's, 2012 were 648 with 28 TD's, 2011 pass attempts were 522 with 31 TD's.

Never mind the 2,354 rushing yards, I guess they only play a little role in the second half...

Jason Garrett believes were winning games in 2014 due the synergy between both the passing game and running game and how the running game had an impact on both sides of the ball.

If that is the case, we were passing better because of the running game in the first half because of the more favorable defenses due to the running game, per his words.

Go figure the one winning season in recent memory 12-4 for Dallas, also happens to feature a dominant running attack with 2,354 rushing yards and less overall passing yards of 435.


We were winning because of the synergy between the passing game and the running game, the effect was better QB play and scoring more points.

Jason parsed it as such:

Jason Garrett articulates clearly why they drafted Zeke and how the 2014 style of running game allows for a positive impact on both the offense and defense :

1) Helps QB by taking pressure off.
2) Helps WR's with favorable looks outside because of run defenses.
3) Possess the ball more.
4) More plays on offense.
5) Fewer plays on defense.
6) Allows defense to play at a higher level.
7) Pervasive impact on entire team.

He states "Similar to how we played a couple years ago when we ran the ball so effectively and I thought it had a positive impact on everyone throughout our team and we believe Zeke gives us a chance to do that".

This was from the presser, start time 4:42 and 5:20 specifically.

Zeke also helps the passing game because he is a natural pass catcher.


http://www.dallascowboys.com/video/2016/04/28/press-conference-after-picking-ezekiel-Elliott

Epic response...too bad your energy's are wasted on posters who refuse to admit when they are wrong...

 

[bsheeern]

Yeah, short yardage and goal line situations are a big part of the game, no doubt.

I tried to address my position re: rushing effectiveness in the post above this one. Hopefully it clears up what I was trying to say better than my earlier post.

It does and makes way more sense.

 

[zrinkill]

Epic response...too bad your energy's are wasted on posters who refuse to admit when they are wrong...

Yup ....... I'm just gonna let Zeke respond to them ..... and enjoy the excuses they make

 

[Rogerthat12]

Epic response...too bad your energy's are wasted on posters who refuse to admit when they are wrong...

What is funny, is I am usually very critical of Garrett but he is balls to the wall right on the 2014 formula and the impact on this team including the QB play.

 

[Idgit]

Blocking, catching out of the backfield and running are part of the benefit of a complete back.

In the 2014 season, the Dallas formula was a balanced attack with passing and running which Garrett attributes the style of running game as the catalyst.

He listed these benefits:

1) Helps QB by taking pressure off.
2) Helps WR's with favorable looks outside because of run defenses.
3) Possess the ball more.
4) More plays on offense.
5) Fewer plays on defense.
6) Allows defense to play at a higher level.
7) Pervasive impact on entire team.

The things that RBs do that increase passing effectiveness do help teams win games, for sure. If EE comes in and aces his pass protection, runs great routes and catches everything thrown to him, converts the ball, and doesn't turn it over, great. I still think there were picks we could have made with bigger potential impact on the outcome of games, but it is what it is. Those are all definitely benefits a RB can bring to the team over and above whatever he might do in terms of rushing effectively.

The problem with your argument is that an effective RB does not generally boost the effectiveness of the passing game much more than in 'ineffective' RB would. The passing benefits you get from having a run defense on the field you get because of your offensive tendencies and not because of your personnel. Defenses aren't going to ignore play action, for example, if you have a bad RB. If you run play action often in a particular down and distance, the defense will react to that regardless of who the RB is. Time of possession and the number of plays a team runs is more a function of passing effectiveness than rushing effectiveness. Same with the number of defensive plays you end up with.

But again, you're talking about balance here, and not rushing effectiveness. If you're QB is good, you can have balance with a mediocre running game as long as you can convert. Nobody's arguing against the importance of balance. They're saying that you don't need a great RB to run a balanced offense.

 

[percyhoward]

Have you watched the Seattle game?

You went from posting season numbers to asking about one game.

1st-half play selection
2006-13: 60% pass, 40% run
2014: 53% pass, 47% run

Romo's 1st-half attempts
2006-13: 17 att
2014: 18 att

Note how Romo's attempt totals went up by one attempt in the season when we incorporated the balanced attack. There is no reason to limit the attempts of a top 5 QB.

 

[Rogerthat12]

The things that RBs do that increase passing effectiveness do help teams win games, for sure. If EE comes in and aces his pass protection, runs great routes and catches everything thrown to him, converts the ball, and doesn't turn it over, great. I still think there were picks we could have made with bigger potential impact on the outcome of games, but it is what it is. Those are all definitely benefits a RB can bring to the team over and above whatever he might do in terms of rushing effectively.

The problem with your argument is that an effective RB does not generally boost the effectiveness of the passing game much more than in 'ineffective' RB would. The passing benefits you get from having a run defense on the field you get because of your offensive tendencies and not because of your personnel. Defenses aren't going to ignore play action, for example, if you have a bad RB. If you run play action often in a particular down and distance, the defense will react to that regardless of who the RB is. Time of possession and the number of plays a team runs is more a function of passing effectiveness than rushing effectiveness. Same with the number of defensive plays you end up with.

But again, you're talking about balance here, and not rushing effectiveness. If you're QB is good, you can have balance with a mediocre running game as long as you can convert. Nobody's arguing against the importance of balance. They're saying that you don't need a great RB to run a balanced offense.

I am talking about both, in 2014 we had balance with rushing effectiveness which impact the QB play, Garrett specifically said this helped Romo and the WR's including the defense, that helps with winning!

 

[bsheeern]

Yeah, 'better' is not a great word here. Sometimes you reach when you're looking for different ways to make the same point so that it might be clearer, but that can get you into trouble. 'Effective' is the right word, and you're right that effectiveness isn't necessarily measured in total yards.

But the idea is the same. You use running plays to get into advantageous downs and distances. Use them to extend drives in short yardage. Use them to score from the goal line. Use them to be more sure you don't turn over the football when the situation calls for it. Use them to bleed time off the clock when you can, or to avoid passing if you've got the lead and can move the chains by running alone. All of those things are big parts of an NFL game and important to helping teams win.

You also use them to set up Various other options in the passing game. Look at What Washington did when RG3 was a rookie. What was more important to that offense? How well they ran the ball out the Pistol or under center? That's just one example.

Look at NE. They are probably the best example you will ever see. Bill doesn't care about balance of who has more yards in one aspect vs the other. He cares about matchups. How many can he create and exploit. And the great thing about Bill is they change from week to week.

 

[Idgit]

..Look at NE. They are probably the best example you will ever see. Bill doesn't care about balance of who has more yards in one aspect vs the other. He cares about matchups. How many can he create and exploit. And the great thing about Bill is they change from week to week.

This is what I"m most excited about with the Zeke pick. If he really can run the route tree, he's a matchup weapon. Split him out the way we split Dunbar and try to cover him with a LB. Or put in a DB and we run against it from 2 TE sets. He's a 3 down back and gives you a lot of options....wait for it....for your elite QB in the passing game.

 

[bsheeern]

This is what I"m most excited about with the Zeke pick. If he really can run the route tree, he's a matchup weapon. Split him out the way we split Dunbar and try to cover him with a LB. Or put in a DB and we run against it from 2 TE sets. He's a 3 down back and gives you a lot of options....wait for it....for your elite QB in the passing game.

I agree. Think Marshal Faulk. Edgerin James.

 

[Rogerthat12]

You went from posting season numbers to asking about one game.

1st-half play selection
2006-13: 60% pass, 40% run
2014: 53% pass, 47% run

Romo's 1st-half attempts
2006-13: 17 att
2014: 18 att

Note how Romo's attempt totals went up by one attempt in the season when we incorporated the balanced attack. There is no reason to limit the attempts of a top 5 QB.

They were limited overall by the increase of the impact of the running game and effectiveness of the passing attack throughout the game, Romo having 1 extra attempt during the first half is not problematic. 2014: 53% pass, 47% run first half.

You have simply supported my point, that an increase in balance had a greater impact on the passing game in the first half generally speaking, the overall pass attempts were limited because they were scoring more, it was a result of this balance.

However, there were games that we were not leading the game, Seattle is an example of an epic running and passing game attack going back and forth resulting in a win.

Do you really want to argue the running game only had an impact during the second half?

Do you really think the dynamic running game does not have these benefits even during the first half on QB play and options?

1) Helps QB by taking pressure off.
2) Helps WR's with favorable looks outside because of run defenses.
3) Possess the ball more.
4) More plays on offense.
5) Fewer plays on defense.
6) Allows defense to play at a higher level.
7) Pervasive impact on entire team.

 

[Rogerthat12]

I am out fellas, I have spent way too much time on this subject, the wife is not happy with me!

I will no longer be engaging in this discussion, I have posted enough.

I agree with Garrett on this subject!

Numbers are always interpreted through categories and are contextualized, people interpret the same data differently many times and that is acceptable.

Most people have already made up their minds and that is fine.

Opinions vary, that is just part of life!

It will be fun to watch Zeke and this offense go this season regardless!

I fully expect the offense to be explosive and Zeke will be a huge part of it!

 

[Manster68]

It would seem unlikely unless you think Elliott is going to eclipse the success Murray had in 2014? I suspect TOP numbers will be pretty much in line with 2015 and 2014.

Elliott doesn't need to have the numbers that Murray had in 2014. All Murray had behind him was Dunbar and underwear boy. With McFadden, Morris, and maybe this young 6th round pick Jackson, there will be more rotation.

 

[percyhoward]

The overall pass attempts were limited because they were scoring more.

Clear your cards, we have a bingo. Scoring more meant we only needed to pass 46% of the time in the second half of games.

If we'd continued passing 53% of the time (as we had in the first half when we built our leads), our pass attempts for the season wouldn't have gone down at all.